Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Oetjen vs. Central Leather Company
Oetjen vs. Central Leather Company
289. Syllabus.
The court notices judicially that the Government of the United States
recognized the Government of Carranza as the de facto government
of the Republic of Mexico, on October 19, 1915, and as the de jure
government on August 31, 1917.
Semble, that the Hague Conventions, in view of their terms and inter-
national character, do not apply to a civil war, and that the regula-
OCTOBER TERM, 1917.
paid for in cash, and when not so paid for a receipt shall
be given and payment of the amount due shall be made
as soon as possible. And also for the reason that the
"Convention" to which the "Regulations" are annexed,
recognizing the incomplete character of the results ar-
rived at, expressly provides that until a more complete
code is agreed upon, cases not provided for in the "Regu-
lations" shall be governed by the principles of the law of
nations.
But, since claims similar to the one before us are being
made in many cases in this and in other courts, we prefer
to place our decision upon the application of three clearly
settled principles of law to the facts of this case as we
have stated them.
The conduct of the foreign relations of our Government
is committed by the Constitution to the Executive and
Legislative-" the political"--Departments of the Gov-
ernment, and the propriety of what may be done in the
exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial
inquiry or decision. United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat.
610; Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 307, 309; Garciav. Lee,
12 Pet. 511, 517, 520; Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 13
Pet. 415, 420; In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 499. It has
been specifically decided that "Who is the sovereign, do
jure or de facto, of a territory is not a judicial, but is a
political question, the determination of which by the
legislative and executive departments of any govern-
ment conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other
officers, citizens and subjects of that government. This
principle has always been upheld by this court, and has
been affirmed under a great variety of circumstances."
Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, 212.
CIt is also the result of the interpretation by this court
of the principles of international law that when a govern-
ment which originates in revolution or revolt is recognized
by the political department of our government as the de
OETJEN v. CENTRAL LEATHER CO.
297. Opinion of the Court.
jure government of the country in.which it is established,
such recognition is retroactive in effect and validates all
the actions and conduct of the government so r ecogmzed
from the commencement of its existence. Williams v.
Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176, 186; Underhillv. Hernandez, 168 U. S.
250, 253. See s. c. 65 Fed. Rep. 577.
To these principles we must add that: "Every sovereign
State is bound to respect the independence of every other
sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not
sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another
done within its own territory. Redress of grievances by
reason of such acts must be obtained through the means
open to be availed of by sovereign powers as between
themselves." Underhil v. Hernandez, 168 U. S.250, 253;
American Banana Co. v. United FruitCo., 213 U. S.347.
Applying these principles of law to the case at bar, we
have a duly commissioned military commander of what
must be accepted as the legitimate government of Mexico,
in the progress of a revolution, and when conducting
active independent operations, seizing and selling in
Mexico, as a military contribution, the property in con-
troversy, at the time owned and in the possession of a
citizen of Mexico, the assignor of the plaintiff in error.
Plainly this was the action, in Mexico, of the legitimate
Mexican government when dealing with a Mexican
citizen, and, as we have seen, for the soundest reasons,
and upon repeated decisions of this court such action is not
subject to redxamination and modification by the courts
of this country.
The principle that the conduct of one independent
government cannot be successfully questioned in the
courts of another is as applicable to a case involving the
title to property brought within the custody of a court,
such as we have here, as it was held to be to the cases cited,
in which claims for damages were based upon acts done
in a foreign country, for it rests at last upon the highest
OCTOBER TERM, 1917.
Syllabus. 246 U. S.